Science! U.N. wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

These are the people calling you, gentle readers, “anti-science” because you are skeptical about their agenda-driven bullshat.

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035.It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.

They needed so badly for this to be true because for years they’ve been predicting an increase in the frequency and severity of weather-related disasters, but it hasn’t quite played out like that. Recall how after Hurricane Katrina they predicted we should expect cat 5 hurricanes the following year and hereinafter, but few to none have materialized. But do not forget, gentle readers, when you question their doctored science, it’s you who is “anti-science”, not them.